LAWS(BOM)-2025-4-255

MAHADEO HARIBHAU TAYAD Vs. NARAYAN KADAJI TAYAD

Decided On April 24, 2025
Mahadeo Haribhau Tayad Appellant
V/S
Narayan Kadaji Tayad Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs/appellants impugns judgment and decree dtd. 21/6/1995 passed by learned District Judge, Beed in Regular Civil Appeal No.194 of 1994, thereby upholding judgment and decree dtd. 27/6/1994 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Beed in Regular Civil Suit No.202 of 1990, by which the suit of plaintiffs seeking relief of declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction came to be dismissed. (Hereinafter, parties are referred by original status in the suit for the purpose of brevity and convenience).

(2.) Plaintiffs instituted suit claiming relief of declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction in respect of suit land bearing Block No.164 situated at Village Ranjegaon, Taluka and District Beed. According to plaintiffs, the suit land was ancestral property. It was owned by their father Hariba, who expired on 14/5/1989. Thereafter, name of plaintiffs have been mutated in revenue record and they are in enjoyment and possession of property. Defendants, who are unconcern of suit property obstructed in their possession. Hence, they filed the suit.

(3.) Defendants filed written statement and admitted that Hariba was the owner of suit property and further pleaded that on 24/4/1975, Hariba executed registered sale deed in their favour and transferred ownership and possession of suit property to them. Since then, they are in enjoyment of property. The consolidation authorities while implementing scheme wrongly continued name of Hariba in record. Plaintiffs by taking disadvantage of aforesaid mistake raised claim for declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction. The Trial Court after considering rival submissions and evaluation of evidence dismissed the suit holding that plaintiffs failed to prove ownership and possession over suit property. On other hand, accepted case of defendants that they acquired ownership vide registered sale deed dtd. 24/4/1975 and were put in possession of suit land. Aggrieved plaintiffs filed appeal before the learned District Judge, who pleased to uphold the decree of Trial Court and dismissed appeal.